State v. Trepanier

23 Citing cases

  1. State v. Brown

    88 A.3d 1101 (R.I. 2014)   Cited 9 times
    Construing Rule 8 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure

    In our opinion, this is a strong argument favoring joinder under Rule 8(a).The defendant maintains that this Court's decision in State v. Trepanier, 600 A.2d 1311 (R.I.1991), in which we decided Rule 8 joinder was inappropriate, is analogous to the present case. We disagree.

  2. State v. Barkmeyer

    949 A.2d 984 (R.I. 2008)   Cited 53 times
    Distinguishing State v. Torres - defendant's Sixth Amendment challenge requires a showing that someone was, in fact, excluded from the trial

    See State v. Firth, 708 A.2d 526, 528-29 (R.I. 1998) (A fingerprint comparison linking the defendant to the murder victim's vehicle that was based on fingerprints derived from his unlawful arrest was not subject to exclusion under the exclusionary rule because the police had an additional set of the defendant's fingerprints that were obtained by lawful means. Because the evidence that linked the defendant to the crime scene inevitably would have been discovered without reference to the illegal arrest, it was admissible.); see also State v. Trepanier, 600 A.2d 1311, 1318-19 (R.I. 1991) (Even if the defendant's spontaneous admission to a police officer about the location of a weapon, after he requested counsel, violated his Fifth Amendment rights as set forth in Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), the crime weapon was admissible as an item that inevitably would have been discovered regardless of the illegally obtained confession.). Thus, in the context of both the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, this Court has recognized that evidence derived from sources separate from a constitutional violation need not be suppressed under the exclusionary rule.

  3. State v. Collins

    679 A.2d 862 (R.I. 1996)   Cited 33 times

    Rather, we have repeatedly held that the proper procedure for a review of a sentence begins in the Superior Court under Rule 35 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. State v. McVeigh, 660 A.2d 269, 276 (R.I. 1995); State v. Baptista, 632 A.2d 343, 345 (R.I. 1993); State v. Tiernan, 605 A.2d 1328, 1329 (R.I. 1992); State v. Trepanier, 600 A.2d 1311, 1315 (R.I. 1991). In the event that a defendant continues to be aggrieved by the ruling of the Superior Court, this Court then will review the decision on appeal.

  4. State v. Mosley

    320 A.3d 942 (R.I. 2024)   Cited 2 times

    Id. (quoting State v. Hernandez, 822 A.2d 915, 918 (R.I. 2003)). Rule 8(a) "permits such joinder of offenses in the same indictment if the offenses charged are of the same or similar character or are based on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan." State v. Ciresi, 45 A.3d 1201, 1216 (R.I. 2012) (brackets omitted) (quoting State v. Trepanier, 600 A.2d 1311, 1315-16 (R.I. 1991)). [37] Here, the trial justice concluded that the three obstruction charges and the underlying gun and homicide charges were part of a common plan or scheme appropriate for joinder under Rule 8(a).

  5. State v. Ciresi

    45 A.3d 1201 (R.I. 2012)   Cited 24 times
    In State v. Ciresi, 45 A.3d 1201 (R.I. 2012), this Court held, in accordance with 404(b), that prior acts of uncharged conduct are admissible evidence for purposes other than propensity, such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, or knowledge.

    Rule 8(a) addresses the joinder of offenses against a single defendant and “permits [such] joinder of offenses in the same indictment if the offenses charged are of the same or similar character or are based on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan.” State v. Trepanier, 600 A.2d 1311, 1315–16 (R.I.1991) (citing Lassor, 555 A.2d at 345). Here, the trial justice determined that the offenses charged within the two indictments constituted parts of a common scheme or plan and thus were capable of joinder as a matter of law under Rule 8(a).

  6. State v. Day

    898 A.2d 698 (R.I. 2006)   Cited 19 times
    In Day, 898 A.2d at 703, this Court held that the joinder of two separate indictments for two robberies involved incidents of a sufficiently similar character because “[b]oth incidents involved the same base criminal offenses: robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery.

    `Because proper joinder under Rule 8(a) is a matter of law, we review de novo whether the state properly joined one or more charges in a single indictment * * *.' If joinder is proper, the decision to grant the Rule 13 motion lies within the sound discretion of the trial justice and will not be disturbed absent a showing of a clear abuse of discretion." State v. Hernandez, 822 A.2d 915, 918 (R.I. 2003) (quoting State v. Rice, 755 A.2d 137, 142 (R.I. 2000)); see also State v. Trepanier, 600 A.2d 1311, 1316 (R.I. 1991) (reviewing "a legal determination concerning whether these counts had been properly joined under Rule 8(a)"). Rule 8(a) provides that two or more offenses may be charged in a single indictment if they fall within one of the following three scenarios: (1) if the offenses charged "are of the same or similar character;" or (2) if the offenses charged "are based on the same act or transaction;" or (3) if the offenses charged are based on two "or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan."

  7. State v. Mondesir

    891 A.2d 856 (R.I. 2006)   Cited 15 times
    Affirming joinder of assault and drug possession offenses as part of the "same transaction" when the only connection between them was that the police found the drugs during a search of defendant's person following his arrest for assault

    He also noted that, even without Mondesir's consent, there was sufficient independent evidence, including witness statements, that would have led to discovery of the shirt. See, e.g., State v. Firth, 708 A.2d 526, 529 (R.I. 1998) (noting "inevitable discovery" exception to exclusionary rule applies when unlawfully obtained evidence would have inevitably been discovered through lawful means); State v. Trepanier, 600 A.2d 1311, 1318 (R.I. 1991) (holding motion to suppress was properly denied where independent sources would have inevitably led to discovery of evidence). It is well established that motions to suppress evidence must be made and heard before trial.

  8. State v. Hernandez

    822 A.2d 915 (R.I. 2003)   Cited 9 times
    In Hernandez, 822 A.2d at 918, this Court held that the joinder of three indictments for five offenses was proper under “the same or similar character” scenario because, in each of three sexual assaults or attempted sexual assaults, the defendant had picked up women and used force against them to demand sex and/or money.

    There can be no disputing that defendant engaged in a common scheme or plan in each of the three attacks. The defendant, relying on State v. Trepanier, 600 A.2d 1311, 1315 (R.I. 1991), argues that the offenses cannot be considered of the "same or similar character" because they are not actually all the same charge. In Trepanier we concluded that misjoinder had occurred because housebreaks, arson and sniping were not of the same or similar character.

  9. State v. Flippo

    212 W. Va. 560 (W. Va. 2002)   Cited 43 times
    In State v. Flippo, 212 W.Va. 560, 566, 575 S.E.2d 170, 176 (2002) (quoting Flippo v. West Virginia, 528 U.S. 11, 120 S.Ct. 7, 145 L.Ed.2d 16 (1999)), the Court discussed the extent to which such searches may be conducted, stating that “police may make warrantless entries onto premises if they reasonably believe a person is in need of immediate aid and may make prompt warrantless searches of a homicide scene for possible other victims or a killer on the premises.

    2002); State v. Anderson, 787 A.2d 601, 606 (Conn.App.Ct. 2001); State v. Harris, 642 A.2d 1242, 1251 (Del. 1993); Taylor v. State, 553 S.E.2d 598, 604 (Ga. 2001); People v. Perez, 630 N.E.2d 158, 162 (Ill.App.Ct. 1994); In Interest of J.D.F., 553 N.W.2d 585, 590-591 (Iowa 1996); State v. McKessor, 785 P.2d 1332, 1337 (Kan. 1990); State v. Hatton, 389 N.W.2d 229, 234 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986); White v. State, 735 So.2d 221, 223 (Miss. 1999); State v. Lashley, 803 A.2d 139, 142 (N.J. 2002); State v. Romero, 28 P.3d 1120, 1122 (N.M.Ct.App. 2001); Harjo v. State, 882 P.2d 1067, 1073 (Okla.Cr. 1994); Commonwealth v. Wideman, 385 A.2d 1334, 1336 (Pa. 1978); State v. Trepanier, 600 A.2d 1311, 1319 (R.I. 1991); State v. Boll, 651 N.W.2d 710, 716 (S.D. 2002); Wilkins v. Commonwealth, 559 S.E.2d 395, 400 (Va.Ct.App. 2002); State v. Lopez, 559 N.W.2d 264, 269 (Wis. 1996). This point was addressed in United States v. Satterfield, 743 F.2d 827 (11th Cir. 1984), wherein the Eleventh Circuit stated:

  10. State v. Oliveira

    774 A.2d 893 (R.I. 2001)   Cited 57 times
    In Oliveira, the court describes Plaintiff and an individual named John Carpenter as the victims of a 1995 assault with intent to murder (Plaintiff) and first-degree murder (Carpenter); according to the opinion, Plaintiff was targeted by the murderers in retribution for his alleged murder of another individual named Baptista.

    This Court has repeatedly held that, in the absence of a motion and determination pursuant to Rule 35, we will not consider issues involving the legality or propriety of a sentence. See State v. Morris, 744 A.2d 850, 859 (R.I. 2000); Bettencourt, 723 A.2d at 1114; State v. Collins, 679 A.2d 862, 867 (R.I. 1996); State v. Brigham, 638 A.2d 1043, 1046-47 (R.I. 1994); State v. Trepanier, 600 A.2d 1311, 1315 (R.I. 1991). Thus, we decline to consider the constitutionality of the sentence imposed upon him by the trial justice, until such time as Ferrell files a motion to correct or reduce that sentence pursuant to Rule 35.